The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-30
BELIEVERS In GEORGES THEORY.
They Decide to Call Their Organization Anti
Poverty Society No. 1 of Indiana.

When the second meeting of the Indianapolis
followers of Henry George was called TO order
in Superior Court room No. 2, at o'clock l asst
night, thirteen persons besides the report
ers. were present-seven more than attended
the initial gathering After the president, Gil
bert Seibert had stated the object of the organ
ization it was suggested that before any further
progress was made the organization should be
named. L. p. Custer thought that there was but
one appropriate name, and that was AMT Pow
erty Society No. of Indiana" "Some people
may believe that such a thing as anti poverty
can not exist" said he, shut I believe the time
is coming when poverty will be extirpated from
the land. That time will come when all people
who desire work can get it, and such will be
the condition of things when Henry Georges
theory Is put into practice. The Bible says the
poor we will have with always, but when our
ideas are put in practice will have nothing
but volunteer poverty" The name was Endorsed
without dissenting voice, and the president
then asked for short speeches from those pres
ent. In order to stimulate discussion, he said
he did not believe 1t was in accordance with the
teachings of Christianity for men who worked
all the time to be without the necessities of life
All poverty he thought, the result of man
being deprived of his brthright the land.
Mr.. Custer asked if there any one present
who did not thoroughly understand the land
doctrines of George. and a young farmer who
said he had come five miles to attend the
meeting admitted that he was not thoroughly
conversant with it, although he had read good
deal about it, and had made up his mind that it
was good thing. Mr.. Custer devoted fifteen
minutes to explaining what Georges land theory
really is. great many people, he said. did not
understand it, and believed that it favored
taking the land from the rich and dividing it
among the poor. Such was not the case. The
principal object was to tax the real estates of
the country and not the improvements If a
man bought piece of unimproved land he
should not be fined for improving 1t by having
to pay tax on his improvements. The result
he said, would be that the spectators would
cease to hold unimproved land for speculation,
and it would naturally pass into the hands
of the poor people.
Charles Fl. Krause thought one of the best
features of the doctrine was its way of dealing
with coal lands. At present they are taxed for
the land only. George proposes to tax them ac-
cording to the value of the deposit, and conse
ouently. in order to meet the tax. more coal
would have to be mined. and the price to the
consumer would be reduced one-half. He would
have the same plan applied to the taxables of
the natural gas lands around Indianapolis.
I'll. J. Hudson said that the only objection he
had ever heard to the theory was that
all the burden would fall on the land holders.
It's opponents argued that it took certain
amount of money to run public affairs.
and If all the tax raised on the land it would
become extortionate. To illustrate the fallacy
of the argument. he said that it took So COO each
year to assess the personal property in Marion
county, and $40, 600 to collect the taxes. Under
Georges system man could collect all the
tax on the land, and save nearly all that ex-
pense. He said another argument used against
the theory was that it would exempt from taxa
ton such men Jay Gould. who owned little or
no real estate. Land, he said, would be taxed
according to its rental value, and Gould's
money was nearly all in railroads, and as an
acre of his railroad is worth many acres of adj
joining land, he would come in for his share of
the tax. Other members discussed the various
phases of the theory, and all agreed that it
good thing
The journal and Sentinel were commended
for the manner in which they had treated the
organization, and resolution was passed ex-
tending thanks to both papers
There discussion to how the
society should be managed in order to make it a
success. Mr.. Krauss favored holding a meeting
in Tomlinson Hall next Sunday evening. and
volunteered to deliver a lecture himself but his
plan did not meet with any favor with the other
members. who thought they had better remem-
Der the fable of the tortoise and the hare and go
slow. 1t was finally decided to secure hall to
meet regularly in and some time in the near
future hold a meeting in Tomlinson Hall and
secure Father McGlynn Rev. Hugh Pente-
cost to deliver address. It was also decided
to hereafter meet on Sunday evenings begin
ming with next Sunday. 1t unanimously
agreed that an effort must be made to secure the
cooperation of the ministers and other infuen-
tial men in the movement, and each member
was instructed to impress upon his friends that
all the meetings would be open to the public.